Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 1

How Do We Stop It?

Strategies for Pushing Back Corporate U.

By David Bordelon

The thought on many an academic’s mind is how to stop it. The “it”? The barrage of reports,

papers, and interviews stating that higher education needs to embrace “disruptive change,” treat students

like customers, and become more entrepreneurial. In short, we must adopt a business model, or like a

blacksmiths shop in the age of automobiles, find itself aour work a mere curio, a quaint but outmoded

heritage industry. This attack comes from all quarters: government, think tanks, even from within the

academy itself.1

The response of many academics generally takes two paths: indignation or resignation. Just

rReading the online comments after one of Thomas Friedman’s “Revolution Hits the Universities” Op Ed

op-ed takedowns of higher education or the latest Chronicle of Higher Education’s effusion patiently

explaining how “How Disruption Can Help Colleges Thrive,” showcasesto see the richness and depth of

academics’ response when critiquing an argument.2 The problem is that we’re fighting a rearguard battle,

trying to argue rationally where an ideology of “business first” is already has been established. And with

papers to grade, research to complete, and articles to write, we end up complaining to each other in the

hallways and at faculty parties, or sighing and shrugging, and then getting back to the real work of

academia. In the meantime, “it” rolls on, powered by think tanks, policy wonks, and college

administrators with time to kill.

But as the ranks of full- time faculty steadily shrink, and as the ranks of “competency-based” and

for-profit institutions grow, it’s clear that inaction will lead to a race to the bottom. And no one wants to

be the last professor cast out of Corporate U.

1 Cf. “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education,” a report from the Bush administration’s Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling, Obama’s various “Race to the Top” initiatives, and from the academy, Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring’s The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out.2 For Friedman, the disruption is centered around online course delivery. In addition to “Revolution,” see his “Come the Revolution,” “Breakfast Before the MOOC, ” and “The Professors’ Big Stage.”

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 2

So what’s the plan? How can faculty stem the “business as usual” tide that permeates so much of

the discourse in higher education today?

What follows are a series of suggestions gleaned from research on higher education trends,

education, and psychology. Most of them will be familiar – they are things academics know we should

do. C – but collected together they seem less formidable: a way to shift from a shrug to action. And that

is what is needed now: action. The suggestions that follow can be loosely grouped into three broad, (and

hopefully easy- to- recall) categories: information, communication, determination.

Information

PThe public discussion on the future of higher education is filled with disinformation.

Confusionsabounds with confusions of purpose, faulty cause and effect, straw men arguments, and false

analogies abound. What’s first needed is specific, accurate information to reshape a mental landscape

that has been distorted with the discourse – and thus mental armature – of the corporate world.

“Credentialing.” “Silos.” “Stakeholders.” “Branding.” This is what now passes as cogent thinking about

higher education. Oddly, despite the recent track record of business in America, these metaphors have

somehow captured the imagination of many interested in post-secondary education. While it’s easy for

academics to dismiss this as the blather of business, the words used to frame discussions about college

matter because, as Neil Postman observed in his prescient The End of Education, “A metaphor is not an

ornament. It is an organ of perception” (174)..” The ramifications for education are many. As Postman

suggests, “Are [students] patients to be cared for? Troops to be disciplined? Sons and daughters to be

nurtured? Personnel to be trained? Resources to be developed?” (174). Given the entrepreneurial bent of

the actors currently strutting on the higher education stage, it’s clear that they believe students are

resources to be exploited: walking wallets. Luckily for academics—and students --, the most common

arguments invoked to describe college as a business can be easily refuted.

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 3

Information: Delivery v. Education

A confusion between dDelivery of content and education are not the same thing—and yet their

conflation forms the basis of much of themany misperceptions in higher education today. For example,

The Chronicle’s Jeffery Seling argues in College Unbound that the core purpose of college is

“information delivery.” Disproving this canard entails a simple explanation of the difference between

delivery and learning. Yes, information can be “delivered,” but multiple modes of information isn’t new

at all: rememberthink lectures, books, tele-courses, and the Great Courses audio and DVD series?. If

delivery was truly at the “core” of education, Gutenberg nailed the coffin shut on innovation in the 15th

century. Print, whether on paper or pixels, can easily provide much of the information delivered on

campus.

The problem with Selingo’s argument is that the purpose of college is education, and actual

education doesn’t occur on the page or online. It’s what students do with information that results in

“higher” learning. What skills do they develop? CHow can they take existing information and make it

into something new? Noam Chomsky offers a challenge to the ideology of education as content, noting

that the purpose of college isn't “to pour information into somebody’s head which will then leak out.”

Instead it should “enable [students] to become creative, independent people who can find excitement in

discovery and creation and creativity at whatever level or in whatever domain their interests carry them.”

TIt’s clear that the true “disruption” that’s occurring isn’t education itself, it’s in how material and

instruction can be presented.

Exhibit A in the confusion between delivery and education are massive, open, online courses, or

MOOCs. With their elimination of pesky faculty and emphasis on a star system of professors (think

Harvard, think branding), MOOCs best represent the latest iteration of Corporate U. Pro-business pundits

such as Friedman, with his usual breathless ardor, write that “nothing has more potential to enable us to

reimagine higher education than the massive open online course, or MOOC, platforms that are being

developed by the likes of Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and companies like

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 4

Coursera and Udacity.” (“Revolution”). Given his own embrace of all things entrepreneurial, it’s no

surprise that Selingo, who like Friedman believes that “American higher education has lost its way,” sees

MOOCs as the “turning point” in the current “revolution” sweeping higher ed. In the summer of 2011,

Dr. Teresa Sullivan, president of the University of Virginia, discovered the hard way the revolutionary

power MOOCs hold over the unenlightened. Her board of trustees fell under the sway of Freidman’s

gospel of technology and attempted to fire her because they felt she wasn’t moving quickly enough to join

the open course bandwagon with Harvard and Stanford. (Rice). But those preaching the MOOC gospel

have been presented with evidence that theirs is a false god. The latest data from the MOOC Research

Initiative – a Bill and Melinda Gates cheering squad for all things MOOC – shows that from student

persistence to academic quality, they are notfail to liveing up to their hype. (Straumsheim).

The acolytes of the tech gods seem to forget that a major part of education involves feedback

from people with a deep understanding of the field of knowledge under discussion. And who will provide

this feedback? on this work? Who will stand in the labs, showing students the subtle differences between

a klebsiella pneumonie and a klebsiella oxytoca?; Oor sit in an office patiently explaining why a semi-

colon would work better than a colon in a particular sentencsentence?e Or; or provide suggestions on the

draft of an essay weighing the differences between the Chicago and behavioral school economists?

That’s where the carbon- based delivery system – a teacher – comes in.

Information: Students are not Customers

Over 10ten years ago, West Virginia’s Higher Education Chancellor J. Michael Mullen voiced

the concern of those who think of college in terms of a e business-minded: "But if institutions don't treat

students as customers, it's possible that they'll take their nickels and dimes somewhere else" (“W. Va.”)..”

This idea, that students are consumers, not academics, Since then, this change from an academic to a

consumer model for students has become one of the most pernicious aspects of the businessification of

higher education. I because it reduces the faculty/student relationship to the profit motiveone based on

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 5

profit. The problem with this logic is that there are many other models to adopt. Why not an apprentice

model? Why not an intern model? Or the teacher/student model which has existed for several ages?

At its most basic level, the customer analogy doesn’t work. Students don’t buy credits; they earn

them. Education, as much as the corporate world would like to make it, is not a simple transaction, no

matter how much the corporate world wishes it were. Learning is a complicated mental and physical

process involving information, demonstration of skills, feedback, persistence, assessment, and mental

change, most of which is intangible. It cannot be placed in a shopping bag or online cart, no matter how

hard businesses try. Yes, it can be paid for, but that still doesn’t make students customers. Instead it

signals a desire on the part of the students to enter the world of academics, a place where the “customer”

is explicitly not always right. Indeed, that realization is an important part of the learning process.

And realistically, do students really want to be treated like a customers by their professors? Do

they want a “would you like fries with that?” mentality governing their education? To reduce students to

customers is to reduce education to a cash transaction. Should colleges and faculty treat students as dollar

signs or as people interested in learning and mental growth? We can point to the recent catastrophe of the

financial industry to see how “clients” or “customers” are treated when they are viewed, to borrow the

words of Chancellor Mullen, as so many “nickels and dimes.”

Information: Education is not a commodity.

Closely connected to the “student as customer” fallacy is the notion that education is a

commodity, like pork bellies or wheat futures. This fits nicely into a corporate model where student

“learning” is just like any other product, something to be quantified, packaged and then sold at a profit.

This confusion is understandable. Books are a commodity. Classrooms are a commodity. Laptops are a

commodity. Even the labor of teaching is a kind of commodity. All of these contribute to learning, and

education, but they are not education itself.

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 6

The hope of entrepreneurs is that education can be commodified and packaged into an online

pellet – much like the dreams in futuristic movies of the 60s and 70sWilly Wonka’s dream of a meal in a

pill. For them, it’s all about monetizing: start with an initial investment, and then sit back and wait for

high returns to a small group of investors. This dream is coming to fruition through the efforts of

publishers such as Pearson, who offer packages of “modules” designed to “teach” students. A market

cycle is created when these “products” are then proselytized in advertisements masquerading as

scholarship (Metros and Getman 250).3 But higher learning is not an mp3 MP3 file or a bit or pixel. Yes,

students can register and pay online for a course; yes, they can get “content” online, but since a life of the

mind is ephemeral, education cannot be transferred and sold to the highest bidder. While the actual desire

for education is subject to the laws of supply and demand and income – is there an opening at College X?

Can I afford it? – education itself is determined and limited by factors such as individual interests, skills,

and temperament, and thus doesn’t lend itself easily to a symbol to be tracked on the Dow ticker. Of

course the University of Phoenix’s profits can be tracked and reported in the Wall Street Journal, but

again, that’s the business side of education, not education itself.

Information: Follow the Money

The real disruption at play here is economic. While politicians and others preach the importance

of higher education and worry about America’s ability to compete in global markets, they don’t want to

pay for it. For instance, in 2008 the cChancellor of tThe University of Tennessee proposed that the state’s

higher education institutions adopt a “business model” to compensate for a “projected 20 percent cut in

3 The information on Pearson is from a “book,” Game Changers, published by Educause “with generous support from Ellucian” (n.p.) which seems less rigorous, peer reviewed examination of an issue than a 402 page puff piece for various companies to shill their digital wares. Ellucian, an IT provider for many colleges, promises to “deliver a broad portfolio of technology solutions, developed in collaboration with a global education community, and provide strategic guidance to help education institutions of all kinds navigate change, achieve greater transparency, and drive efficiencies” (“About”). Game Changers is emblematic of similar collections which offer a way for IT staff (along with a few faculty converts) to gain academic credibility by “publishing” the work they are paid to do, often in conjunction (and sometimes funded by) the very corporate entity they are praising. More ominously, given its placement in The Chronicle (a supposedly more objective venue), consider “Disruption is Good,” an “essay” with the caveat “Information provided by Canvas by Instructure,” praising technology as a kind of digital Shiva: both destroyer and creator. Is it an advertisement? An essay? The Chronicle web site keeps it ambiguous. These incursions into “scholarly” publications suggest how deeply corporate propaganda has infiltrated higher education.

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 7

state funding.” (qtd. in Ginsberg). The disruptive force here involved the elimination of teachers from the

educational model; students willing to “work online with no direct support from a faculty member” (qtd.

in Ginsberg) would receive a tuition discount. Eliminating the teacher from the course, however, is

merely of symptom of the larger social disease: the problem is less a crisis of funding than of priority.

While the public clamors for college for all, it balks at the costs such an effort entails.4 The math is clear:

between 1985 and 2010, the ratio between state support for college and tuition of funds for public

instituions was reversed, with state or public funding funds dropping from two- to one- third of

institutional revenues, while tuition rose from one- to two- thirds. (Rampell).

The calls for a business model among college trustees and administrators for a business model

follows a predictable pattern; the people leading the charge are seldom those providing (teachers) or

receiving (students) the education. Trustees, often chosen from the ranks of successful business people in

the hope of donational largesse, are more enamored with the pages of the Wall Street Journal than the

New York Review of Books. For example, the board that orchestrated the ouster of Teresa Sullivan,

headed by real estate developer Helen Dragas, resorted to business-speak to articulate describe the

problem at the University of Virginia: it needed “systemic restructuring,” code words for firing people

and bringing in new bodies (Rice). . More generally, they are connected to pro-business think tanks or

political parties which that stand to gain from a pro-business approach. Benjamin Ginsberg reports that

board members “make insider deals in which the institution purchases goods, services, or property from

companies linked to their board members.” As such, they stand to financially benefit by diverting some

of the funds from the cash cow that is higher education into their own coffers. This worship of business

ideology – and its concomitant love of management – leads to a trickle-down effect on campuses, which

are now awash with consultants, administrators, and support staff. The New England Center for

Investigative Journalism recently published a report which provides a number to a phenomena most of us

have noticed on campuses: administrative and professional staff levels have increased by more than half

4 For an excellent overview on the negative feedback cycle of politics, economics, and higher education, see Karin Fischer’s and Jack Stripling’s “An Era of Neglect.”

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 8

over the last 25 years. (Marcus). This is all at the expense of teachersfaculty, the personnel students have

the most contact with.

A more direct point to address is the shift from full- to part- time teachers. In 1975, part- timers

made up 43.2 percent% of faculty; by 2011, the number was 70.2 percent.% (“Trends”). And the word

choice is important here: part- time, not contingent. Teachers, not faculty. This more direct language

communicates more clearly to the public what is at stake: time and teaching. Do students want teachers

who are harried and running from school to school trying to patch together a lower- middle class

livinglife?, Oor do they want a stable, engaged faculty interested in maintaining long- term contact with

the mcollege and students? Do employers and taxpayers want teachers who are "incentivized" to please

students with an “easy A” due to fear of non-renewal?, Oor do they want tenured full- time faculty who

are free to provide an academically rigorous education?5

These questions all point to the damage visited upon colleges when an education based on money

instead of instruction is the rule. Caveat emptor, indeed.

Communication

While this pool of information is helpful, without the next step, communication, faculty are can’t

just talking to themselves: communication with the public is the necessary next step. Unfortunately,

there’s an established narrative peddled by media darlings such as Michelle Rhee and the various anti-

union groups associated with the billionaire, right-wing Koch brothers. Their message which boils down

to a slogan ready- made for a public looking for someone to blame: education in American sucks because

teachers have too much power. They suggest it’s time to clean up Dodge and treat it like any other

industry. Let the “experts” – that is businessmenpeople from the corporate world, they say – take over

and all will be well.

5 For a review of the literature on the effectiveness of part time teachers, see Amanda Ochoa’s "Contingent Faculty: Helping Or Harming Students?"

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 9

But this default turn to “business as savior” offers provides a weakness that can be readily

exploited: its own Achilles’ heel. Working to our advantage is the public respect – alone, it appears,

among major institutions – that higher education possesses. A 2011 Lumina/Gallup poll found that 70

percent of Americans are satisfied with the “quality of American colleges and universities.” (“Lumina”

2). In the same year, a Gallup survey on confidence found that “Big Business” could only muster a 19

percent approval rating. (“Confidence”). Obviously, those fighting Corporate U. would have a willing

audience. What should we say to them? For starters, we need to expose the fallacies regarding education

and business (noted above), and then connect them to the lack of trust in corporations.

Here we can borrow a lesson from the masters of coercive messaging and branding: corporate

America. But this poses an immediate problem. How to get a group of people trained to think

independently – the professoriate – to present the kind of cohesive front necessary for a messaging

campaign?. One way is to appeal to our innate desire to educate. The public has been sold a false bill of

goods, providing us with a “teaching moment.” How to address this moment, as academics are well

aware, varies depending on the audience. For campus consumption, the Princeton economist Daniel

Kahneman , in Thinking Fast and Slow, offers a dense but cogent discourse sure to appeal to boards of

trustees, weaned, as most are, on a diet of business-speak. His language, and the theories behind it,

including “affect heuristic,” “availability cascade,” and “planning fallacy,” are drawn from a wealth of

cognitive research, and can be used to combat the errors in the college-is-failing-so-we-need-to-turn-to-

business-for-help line of thinking.

For the general public, framing frame the issue by appealing to prevailing anxieties about

stagnant wages for workers (the 99 percent%) and rising salaries for administrators (the 1 percent%), and

also the exploitation of students by Corporate U. who, and paying full tuition for part- time workers

should get traction. As noted earlier, words matter. Workers. Teachers. Students. Overpaid

administrators. Out- of- touch Trustees. Full tTime. Part tTime. Profit motive. These words and

phrases can move the debate, where it belongs,making it part of the growing discontent with the

corporatization of America.

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 10

But directly refuting the party lines – delivery is not education; students are not consumers;

education is not a commodity; beware of corporate influence – is not enough. What's needed is a

narrative shift from a disruptive to academic view of higher education. This shift is crucial because it

negates the caricature of faculty as out of touch with the world around them and motivated by mere self-

interest.6 Faculty need tomust make the focus on what they understand: education. To that end, Andrew

Delbanco, in College: What it is, was, and should be, provides a list of the “qualities of mind” which can

serve as a template for a more positive, less defensive narrative on the meaning and purpose of college.

He writes that it should provide:

[1.] A skeptical discontent with the present, informed by a sense of the past..

1.[2.] The ability to make connections among seemingly disparate phenomena.

2.[3.] Appreciation of the natural world, enhanced by knowledge of science and the arts.

[4.] A willingness to imagine experience from perspectives other than one’s own.

3.[5.] A sense of ethical responsibility.

While this can – and will – be amended by individual faculty, such a list should be part of an academic’s

rhetorical arsenal. Its appeal lies in its inviolability: who would disagree with any of these ideas? And

that is what is needed, an endorsement of an authentic college education, with its compassion and rigor

intact, unmediated by the profit motive.

Of course digital media provides a ready – and inexpensive – platform for dissemination of these

ideas. A website with a collection of budget documents from specific schools detailing the millions of

dollars spentd on consultants, administrative salaries, and retreats can open the eyes of taxpayers ready to

pounce on fiscal mismanagement. Blog posts, tweets, or even the old standby “letters to the editor” can

provide an intelligent and sustained counter narrative to the prevailing gospel of disruption, and spread

the good word about the need for genuine higher education. With an emphasis on the positive, faculty

need tocan explain how a business- first agenda is antithetical to true education. And when trustees turn a 6 For an amusing example of this view, see the New York Post article reporting on a judicial decision ordering academic oversight of New York City’s Stop and Frisk policy. The title photo – a bespectacled and befuddled looking man in a suit and mortar board hat – and opening line, – “A panel of 13 Ivory Tower eggheads,” – are caricatures in themselves (Schram).

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 11

deaf ear to faculty concerns, it’s time go right up the food chain, to local, state, and federal government

officials, with appropriately pitched messages to each. While trustees may not listen to faculty, they do

respond to political pressure: faculty need to start pressing the appropriate buttons.

More direction action can help as well. Picket lines remain an effective way to get media

attention: video loves a protest. The key here is to remain on message. For this kind of action, designed

for public consumption, participants should agree and prepare two or three talking points – and be ready

to direct interested partiesjournalists or potential allies to websites with additional information.

ACollecting separate station to collect email addresses, and Ttwitter accounts, and mobile phone numbers

for text blasts, can expand communication networks beyond the confines of a campus. Students , facing

the effects of a failed economic model now intent on taking over their colleges, are often interested in

pushing back against corporate agendas as well. At UVA, students protested protesting the actions of the

Trustees demonstrated their frustration and understanding of the ideology behind Sullivan’s ouster by

spray painting G-R-E-E-D on the colonial- era columns of the rotunda (Rice). For a nation in thrall of

spectacle, such actions are tailor- made to focus attention, and once attention is gained, faculty can do

what they do best: instruct.

Determination

But to be blunt, we are facingface with a long haul. Faculty now find themselves tasked with

explaining the reality of college education to an audience conditioned to accept a myth. At times this will

seem like a Sisyphean ordeal. We must prepare to be discouraged and prepare to lose many battles – but,

also, ultimately to win the war. (Ggiven how beleaguered most faculty feel, military metaphors are

inevitable). Those who see college as a business have one thing in their favor: money, – and the time and

energy it can buy. They can write (or more likely, hire ghostwriters to write) propagandist reports, cut off

fundingplay with funding, attend meetings and retreats with like- minded people, all to further their

agenda. Meanwhile, those who actually do the business of college – faculty – are too busy preparing

lessons, keeping abreast of the latest research, grading papers, or teaching in a classroom to spend time

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 12

advocating for a particular view of college. To themmany faculty members, it is obvious that a college is

for education, not business.

Yet there are victories we should celebrate and look to for instruction. President Sullivan’s

victory over the UVA board is a sign that, with a united front, the rush for corporatization can be

stemmed, and more thoughtful and measured thinking about college administration and instruction can be

maintained. A number of recent editorials in the New York Times criticizing the rise of administration

and the growth multiplication of part- time faculty demonstrate that the problems of “it” are no longer

solely the province of campus hallway conversations.7

Faculty need to add their voices to the long continuum of American resistance to domination by

the powerful; in this case, the reigning business culture. We need to follow the example of that icon of

prickly intelligence, Henry David Thoreau, who inse “Resistance to Civil Government” offered offers a

philosophy well- suited to the avocational nature of teaching: “Let your life be a counter-friction to stop

the machine.”

Yes, it’s time to apply counter friction. It’s time to stop it.

7 Cf. the editorials “The New College Campus,” “The Trouble with Online College,” and Tamar Lewin’s “After Setbacks, Online Courses Are Rethought.”

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 13

Works Cited

“About Us.” Ellucian. Web. 21 February 2014. <http://www.ellucian.com/About-Us/>.

Christensen, Clayton M. and Henry J. Eyring. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher

Education from the Inside Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011. Print.

Christensen, Clayton M. and Michael B. Horn. “How Disruption Can Help Colleges Thrive.” The

Chronicle of Higher Education. 30 September 2013. Web. 18 February 2014.

Chomsky, Noam. “How Higher Education Ought to Be: On Academic Labor.” Counterpunch. 28

February-2 March 2014. Web. 2 March 2014.

“Confidence in Institutions.” Gallup. Web. 2 March 2014.

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx#1>.

Delbanco, Andrew. College: What it is, was, and should be. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2012. Kindle AZW

file.

“Disruption is Good.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 23 September 2014. Web. 1 March 2014.

Fischer, Karin and Jack Stripling. “An Era of Neglect.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 3 March

2014. Web. 5 March 2014.

Friedman, Thomas. “Breakfast Before the MOOC.” 18 February 2014. Web. 20 February 2014.

---. “Come the Revolution.” New York Times. 15 May 2012. Web. 20 February 2014.

---. “The Professors’ Big Stage.” New York Times. 5 March 2013. Web. 20 February 2014.

---. “Revolution Hits the Universities.” New York Times. 26 January 2013. Web. 20 February 2014.

Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fall of the Faculty. New York: OUP, 2014. Kindle AZW file.

“The Just – in – Time Professor.” House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democratic Staff.

January 2014. Web. 20 February 2014.

Lewin, Tamar. “After Setbacks, Online Courses Are Rethought.” New York Times. 10 December 2013.

Web. 24 February 2014.

“Lumina Foundation/Gallup Poll 2011 Higher Education.” Gallup. May 2011. Web. 3 March 2014.

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/151844/Lumina-Foundation-Gallup-Poll-2011.aspx>.

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 14

Marcus, Jon. “New Analysis Shows Problematic Boom In Higher Ed Administrators.” New England

Center for Investigative Reporting. 6 February 2014. Web. 10 February 2014.

Metros, Susan E. and Joan Falkenberg Getman “Going the Distance: Outsourcing Online Learning.”

Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies. Ed. Diana G. Oblinger. Louisville,

CO: Educause, 2012. Web. 2 February 2014.

Ochoa, Amanda. "Contingent Faculty: Helping Or Harming Students?" Journal Of The Professoriate 6.1

(2012): 136-151. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 February 2014.

“The New College Campus.” The New York Times. 16 February 2014. Web. 24 February 2014.

Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Vintage, 1996. Print.

Rampell, Catherine. “Where the Jobs Are, the Training May Not Be.” New York Times. 1 March 2012.

Web. 4 February 2014.

Rice, Andrew. “Anatomy of a Campus Coup.” New York Times. 11 September 2012. Web. 27 February

2014.

Schram, Jamie. “Ivory Tower Eggheads to Monitor Stop and Frisk.” New York Post. 18 September 2013.

Web. 18 February 2014.

Selingo, Jeffrey J. College Unbound: The Future of Higher Education and What It Means for Students.

New Harvest, 2013. Kindle AZW file.

Straumsheim, Carl. “Confirming the MOOC Myth.” Inside Higher Ed. 6 December 2013. Web. 8

December 2013.

“A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education.” United States Department of

Education. 2006. Web. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-

report.pdf

“Trends Table.” Resources on Contingent Appointments. American Association of University Professors.

Web. 2 February 2014.

“The Trouble With Online College.” The New York Times. 18 February 2013. Web. 24 February 2014.

Revised “How Do We Stop It?” 15

“W. Va. Higher Ed Plan Emphasizes Students As Customers, State's Economy." Community College

Week 14.1 (2001): 23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.